Anatomy of Murder - Lie or Die Part 2

Episode Date: July 7, 2021

Murder, another murder, and a hand on a shoulder. How these three things intersect and how the tangled web was unwoven hits at the heart of our justice system. Part 2 of 2.For episode information and photos, please visit https://anatomyofmurder.com/ Can’t get enough AoM? Find us on social media!Instagram: @aom_podcast | @audiochuckTwitter: @AOM_podcast | @audiochuckFacebook: /listenAOMpod | /audiochuckllc

You know, witness intimidation and drug dealers and people to change their stories. It's something that comes out of a script that keeps people interested in criminal law. It was all the other stuff that made it a made-for-TV type trial. I'm Scott Weinberger, investigative journalist and former deputy sheriff. I'm Anastasia Nicolazzi, former New York City homicide prosecutor and host of Investigation Discovery's True Conviction. And this is Anatomy of Murph. Today's case is part two of a look into a series of events that would challenge the very fabric of our criminal justice system. And spoiler alert, if you've not listened to part one,

you should definitely do it now. Let me set the scene. It's Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, New York, which is under the NYPD's Brooklyn North Command. And in 2001, 166 homicides were reported just in this command alone. And on the night of September 4th, 2001, one of those cases would unfold in Willoughby Park,

where, as on most nights, teens gathered in this densely residential area of the city. On a park bench was Dennis Brown, who was seated right next to his brother, Corey, surrounded by several other friends. And without warning, a man on a bike rolled up, circled around a few times, pulled out a handgun, and shot Dennis Brown. Police would later identify that man as Wesley Sykes, and he was actually gunning for Brown's brother, Corey. Wesley Sykes was clearly aware that several of the bystanders witnessed him pulling the trigger. And one of those witnesses was Bobby Gibson, a friend of Dennis Brown,

a teen himself who just wanted to do the right thing. And just a few days before he was set to testify. My beeper goes off and I speak with a detective and he said, he's dead. So they're already looking at a guy by the name of Dupree Harris or Turf, as he was known. And he is, remember, the half-brother of Wesley Sykes. But they're really looking at him for the threats made to other witnesses, the young women who we've called the girls.

They were all in their late teens at the time. D pre-Harris telling the three witnesses in a chilling conversation, either lie or die. And that the only one who didn't go with the lie was Bobby Gibson. Here we are at the beginning of the Wesley Sykes trial, and prosecutors are now connecting the murder of Bobby Gibson to that trial as a witness. And remember, the reason they're doing this is that basically they are attempting to use his testimony in court. And as Steve Murphy is laying this all out... Kirk was in the courtroom, and the district attorney's office was called to ask detectives to race over to the courthouse to apprehend Mr. Harris. He went into the hallway and I went out and followed him.

And Mr. Harris, in front of a number of different people, said he was going to have me killed. Now, Turf was able to slip out of the courthouse and get away. Even though this is a first time for me and first time for the judge to have ever confronted anything like this, we concluded this hearing. The judge allowed us to introduce portions of Mr. Gibson's prior statements. And right after that, we rolled right into opening statements. So there wasn't time to catch your breath. You had to just roll up your sleeves and get ready to go. Here he is, this young prosecutor who not only wants to prove himself, but wants to kind of tackle all this. You know, he's new to homicide, so he is going to give it his all. But

he's not fearful at all to go into court. And look at what he's working with. He has one witness dead. He has three remaining witnesses who have now recanted and he's being asked to head into court. I think that many experienced prosecutors would have looked at this and ran the other way and looked at it like this was an impossible journey because there was so much to it. But my personal inexperience probably allowed me to think of this as something that's completely possible. Let's go do it. It is so interesting to hear Stephen's take on that. I mean, had he had a number of homicide cases under his belt, instead of being the new guy in the unit, he may have chosen not to take the case. I thought it was really interesting when he said it too. And while it, of course,

experience always makes you better, but he's totally right in this case. And here's why. The more you have done this, you know how important it is always to cross your T's and dot your I's and you can't leave anything to chance. So it's all about prepare, prepare, prepare. And it really is what he talks about, that inexperience that lets him just be, you know, bowling a china shop, if you will, and just go right in there and get this job done. There's a lot more kind of sensationalized components to this. It was all the other stuff surrounding the trial that made it a made-for-TV type trial. This was something that Law & Order decided was worth featuring. If I was preparing for a live report from the courthouse at the top of a newscast, something I did for more than a decade, I would, without a doubt, start with these very words.

He was about to testify in a murder trial in just two days, but sources at the NYPD say they believe the murder of Bobby Gibson was a cold-blooded execution of the Brooklyn DA's prime witness. And now one of the big questions on everyone's mind, and certainly for Steve Murphy, would the girls cooperate? Would they take the stand and give testimony about what they saw? They didn't ask to be witnesses in this case. And they certainly didn't ask for any of the drama that surrounded this case.

When it came down to it, they showed up. And they stared down the defendant. and they described what they saw. No more, no less. When I think about what those three young women did, I feel such pride for them. I mean, what they did is what holds our judicial system together. Personally, they have nothing to gain, but yet they had so much to lose. And there is so much more now at stake with what happened that just happened to their friend, Bobby Gibson. And security or not, at the end of the day, there are absolutely no guarantees. But

yet these young women, while all this madness is going on around them and there's investigation whether Bobby Gibson was killed because he was a witness or for some other reason, they did what was right. They stood up and with their friend and they testified about the person they saw murder him. So what we have is the three girls who all testified about Dupree Harris's involvement in trying to get them to change their testimony. We, right in front of the judge, compelled the defense attorney to produce the tapes that he had secured with the help of Dupree Harris turf. The judge actually saw that the defense attorney was in some way complicit in this. You could see that the judge was particularly perturbed that the attorney, in making the recording, omitted the fact that they were brought there by the defendant's half-brother, omitted the fact that the brother sat in the room with his hands on their shoulder

as they offered their recantation. But, you know, once that trial was done as far as the testimony, it was still far from over, because now it's up to the jury. And on this day, the jury would not take a long time to render their verdict. They had reached a verdict rather abruptly, and that's a little unnerving, I think, for a prosecutor or for a trial lawyer. And you just hope that they weren't dismissive. They came back, and the defendant was convicted of the top count of murder in the second degree, which in New York was the highest charge that he could have been convicted of.

He was convicted of a weapons charge and a reckless endangerment charge. So while the Dennis Brown homicide trial is over, now you have a second murder that has to be tackled out there. That first question that has to be answered next is who killed Bobby Gibson? And surprise, it's not Dupree Harris. You have really two separate cases while very interconnected going on at the same time. You have Bobby Gibson's homicide case that is being investigated and proceeding along the prosecutorial track. And you also have these three young women that have been threatened and have been bribed.

But let's just go to Bobby Gibson right now. You all think about this, and you've already heard about the name Dupree Harris and the threatening of girls, so you may all be thinking about him, about, wait a second, what did this guy also do? And let me tell you something, that while, yes, they're already hot on the trail

that he threatened these young women and that he orchestrated their recantations, but it is not him that police were looking at that they were zeroing in on for Bobby Gibson's murder. Bobby Gibson was killed late Friday, June 28th into Saturday, June 29th. You're listening to an interview that we did with Mitch Benson. Mitch Benson is a well-known and respected prosecutor in the criminal law community. And at the time, he had done maybe the most trials in the office.

And back then, he was also one of my supervisors. When Bobby Gibson was shot, there had been a party and people drinking beer, and Bobby Gibson was present. In this case, one particular interview by detectives would really pay dividends.

The police were looking for Dupree Harris, but there was somebody who was interviewed who said that a man named Travis Ragsdale said he was going to lay, slay, and K. K was the nickname for Bobby Gibson, and Slay was the nickname for Corey Brown. This guy is saying he's going to lay Slay and Kay, and they are the two male witnesses in the homicide. You know, that's not coincidence. You know, that statement was the first real indication that the execution of Bobby Gibson was to prevent him from testifying two days later. But who was Travis Ragsdale? So for these purposes, all you really need to know is he kind of was one of the rest of this group. And as far as he was also young, he was 20 years old. He had a slight build. But two more things about

Travis Ragsdale. One, he knows the people involved. He's friends with McCullough, the guy whose girlfriend was slapped by Corey Brown. And in addition, he also has possible affiliation with the Bloods, the very same street gang as Dupree Harris. So now we've got solid intel off of the streets, and it's time to locate Travis Ragsdale and bring him in for questioning. And that's exactly what investigators were able to do. He just said that he had a dispute with Bobby Gibson when some people were out and it kind of gathered socially. He did not give a motive other than his dispute. So someone just hearing that on its face may say,

oh, okay, so it really wasn't about him being a witness. But I could tell you from experience, and you all may be thinking it too, not so fast. You know, people say things all the time to put their best foot forward, to get out from under at least part of what they've done. And there is a huge difference here between shooting him because of a personal dispute or if he's going to kill him because he was a witness. And here's why. In New York, if you kill someone, like he said, because they're out having beers and they just got into a fight, well, that's murder in the second degree. And the maximum penalty is 25 years to life.

But at this time, in 2001, New York still had the death penalty, or at least the potential for it. And murder of a witness qualifies as first-degree homicide in New York. So there is at least the possibility that if that was what is proven, that you are looking at either life without the possibility of parole, or at that time, even potentially the death penalty. So there's a lot of motivation that if you think that the police know it's you to still try to twist the why. But this confession is weaving an interesting narrative for him, and that would have to be supported with not just his statement, but with real evidence.

He was believed to be a member of the Bloods gang. Debris Harris was believed to be a member of the Bloods gang. Dupree Harris was believed to be a member of the Bloods gang. But we weren't able to specifically develop a connection between Dupree Harris and the specific shooting that led to the death of Bobby Gibson. It's not unusual that the dirty work, including murder, is carried out by newer members as an initiation to the gang or to prove themselves to the hierarchy. Obviously, Ragsdale was arrested for murder. There was another supervisor that was handling that murder case. Even with a taped confession to the murder of Bobby Gibson, a not guilty plea brought

this case into a Brooklyn courtroom. And yes, while a confession is strong evidence, it is a long way from a conviction, especially with all of the events surrounding the killing of a witness. And those concerns would play into this case. Travis Ragsdale's defense did come up with various positions to counter what the DA said. They said that, first of all, Travis Ragsdale had psychological problems and that that fed into the why he killed Bobby Gibson. They said that he was in no way a member of any gang, certainly not the Bloods. And they also said that this was not a premeditated murder. Again, they're trying to come off that murder of a witness, which, of course,

would be purposeful and premeditated in this case. Travis Ragsdale had said that somebody gave him a gun prior to the shooting, and he never specified who did that. So I've always thought it was possible that Dupree Harris played a role in that, although we didn't have that as evidence, so that wasn't presented. The jury would consider everything within this trial as they normally do. And in this case, Travis Ragsdale was guilty, second-degree murder. Now, Anastasia, second-degree, what's your reaction to that?

They set out to get justice for Bobby Gibson, and the jury came back with what we call as prosecutors a compromise. They said that, yes, they found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, but they weren't willing to say that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was killed because of his upcoming testimony being a witness. I can't say for sure what it was that led to him being shot by Travis Ragsdale. Travis Ragsdale insists that it was an argument over a bottle of booze. But there's always been a part of me that very firmly believes

that Bobby Gibson was killed because he wanted to do the right thing. So while it was a blow to what we believed was the why, he was still found guilty, and in the jury's mind, they had achieved justice. So now with Wesley Sykes behind bars, Travis Ragsdale behind bars, there's only one person left for Mitch and his office to take down, and that's Dupree Harris. So Dupree Harris is being charged with the bribery and the intimidating of witnesses. As it turns out, Harris disappeared after Bobby Gibson was murdered, but detectives

finally located him in Virginia on December 19th, 2002, and he was living under the name of Carlos Watts. And what does that say to you, Anna Seager? That says you're going to march into court with those bits of information and say that's consciousness of guilt. If he wasn't hiding from this charge, if he hadn't taken off so that he wouldn't be held accountable, he wouldn't have been this guy who's from here his whole life and now living in another state under an assumed name. Dupree Harris was ultimately arrested and indicted and charged with the coercion and bribery of the three girls. It was handled by Mitchell Benson, who was, not coincidentally, the attorney who assigned me the case that one fateful afternoon, saying this was going to be a straightforward murder case that starts tomorrow. So I think it was fitting that he ultimately had to finish it off.

You may be saying, well, why wasn't Mitch Benson, one of the supervisors, the chief of trials in the Bureau, who was tasked with prosecuting Dupree for what happened with the girls. I've met Mitch and I would say the guy is a pit bull. What I can tell you is that there's no prosecutor with more integrity than Mitch. You know, he is as skilled in the courtroom as he is with his investigation. And that really made him the person that needed to take the threatening of these young women on. Dupree Harris was actually facing charges in two cases, not only the bribery and the intimidation of witnesses from the Sykes case, but another arrest had been made against Dupree Harris for a homicide that happened in 1999.

I know, right? Wait, what, another homicide here that you're talking about? I mean, yes, it is head-turning, but really, what another homicide here that you're talking about? I mean, yes, it is head turning, but really stick with us here because you're going to hear that while we're just going to simplify this one to just the bare minimum, it really is relevant in all of this. Basically in 1999, he was a suspect in that murder case. And there were a number of people who've spoken to his name surfaced, but nobody who had seen him pull the trigger was willing to testify. And that involved a lot of difficulty with witnesses.

And the fear factor was as high as I've seen. One by one, they were recanting, refusing to cooperate, even leaving the courthouse when they were supposed to go in and testify. So, Anastasia, have you ever experienced this level of witness intimidation? Unfortunately, I have. There is intimidation certainly in the days of the Internet, on social media, all the time now. We've had it that I've had tires slashed the day before someone walked into court. I've had someone literally knifed to try to get them to not come in and testify. And while thankfully this is not something that happens often, it does occasionally occur. And when it does, it's as serious as anything that we as prosecutors need to deal with.

But, you know, at the end of the day, it really comes down to we have to protect our witnesses. And that is where this is much messier than you might expect. And you can imagine when the witnesses dropped out what that meant for the trial. That resulted in acquittal. And we were all concerned and upset, quite frankly. Now that he's acquitted of this murder, think about how high the stakes are for the other case regarding the bribery and witness intimidation of the three girls. And let's think back to what we've already learned about him. Here's a guy who has already evaded justice. He has allegedly threatened witnesses, threatened prosecutors. So up to now, he has basically been told by that lack of accountability that he can do whatever he wants and get away with it because no one dares go up against him.

So from my perspective, this next prosecution, the stakes are just as very high as the one we've heard before. Everything seems to be riding on this sole remaining bribery and witness intimidation case. And the number one thing that has to happen is that prosecutors and law enforcement need to keep these girls safe. Too much damage has already been done to witnesses involved in these cases. Because if these women can't walk into the courtroom for one reason or another, Dupree Turf Harris may once again walk away scot-free. Dupree Harris continues to dodge jail. And now the only way to put him behind bars is to keep those original three girls safe.

Now we're just going to use their first names as Naya, Letit, and Shaquana. Now, they agreed to testify against Dupree and explain how he had threatened them. Remember the line he had said to them, lie or die in the Wesley Sykes case. The problem is that local prosecutors don't have a formal witness protection program. When people hear about witness protection, they think about the federal program. And they have a lot of resources to move people around the country, change their identities. Nothing like that exists in the state system. First of all, when you talk about the witness protection program, you're usually talking about the federal witness protection programs. And they have a lot more resources than the various local offices. Well, the Hollywood perception is that prosecutors and detectives have unlimited resources.

Bring me this, do this test, protect this witness. The reality is that we never had budgets or money set aside specifically for witness relocation. All of this takes money and expending resources that so many smaller offices just don't have. They don't have the millions to put there because while they're going to use it, that now is being taken from somewhere else. So there's so many difficulties with this. I have to say that all three of these girls were living in what you could only describe as abject poverty. They were unemployed. They had limited education.

Their housing situations were unstable even before this began. So they were very unhappy about the situation they were in. So Anastasia, I think a lot of our listeners may be asking, have you ever had to utilize a program like this, Witness Protection? Multiple times. But let me tell you, first of all, it is nothing like what you see in the movies. This is not the glamour of Hollywood that people get a new name, an identity, they put on their sunglasses, grab their suitcases, and run off to Arizona. And I guess I just pick Arizona because it seems like a pretty sweet place to live. One thing that we tried to do is find places that were not hotels,

which was just a tremendous expense. Eventually, we're trying public housing. But no matter where it is, nothing about this is easy. You know, they were close friends. They were living separately. We couldn't have them together. Just think about how lonely that is. You need to pick up and leave your family and your friends, and whether you're in a hotel or in another apartment in another state, you are by yourself. You can imagine everybody has a lot of things going on in their life. When you take somebody and you tell them, stay quiet, not be in contact with anybody,

to not go back to their old neighborhood, then you're really becoming responsible for every aspect of their life. You need to leave your job. You need to leave your town. You need to leave everything that you know. You think about just being uprooted. You're told you've got to stay in a place and you don't have any money. You don't have any resource other than what's provided for you. And we are asking them to do this so that we then can go into court with something that very often isn't going to impact them one way or the other in the end.

They were unhappy with the system and they would think, you know, that I didn't fully appreciate enough what they were going through. And they were right. As much as we thought that we were watching over them, they must have felt alone. One of the girls had a brother. She wanted the brother to stay with her. I said, that can't happen. Her brother was getting out of prison, and she said, he's got nowhere to stay.

And I said, he can't stay with you. That would get you evicted. Basically, the terms that we protect people in is that you can't start having people over. You can't start socializing and going back to your neighborhood because, again, that puts you at risk. There was another young woman. She became pregnant during the time that she was under our watch and gave birth in a hospital, but the hospital would not allow her to leave with her newborn unless she had a safe child seat. I could not get investigators to take on that responsibility, but I had young children, so I used my own vehicle and my own car seat and the bucket, and I drove her to the place that she was staying. But that was the type of thing that would happen repeatedly.

There were just challenges that most people wouldn't expect or anticipate. You know, I have so much tremendous respect for somebody willing to do their civic duty, obviously as a jury, but as a witness in a homicide case, a tremendous amount of respect to come forward and to tell the truth. But to have to upend your entire life for long periods of time in order to fulfill that duty really requires a special kind of person. They had very few resources, but they were smart and they were resilient mentally and physically, and they had survival skills for their situations. It's an important peg in a judicial system that needs to be thought out well, needs to be planned out well, and we need to make sure that justice

can be found through the witness's testimony. Few offices, even ours, are really equipped to take care of that. So it becomes a year-long, day-by-day effort to try to keep them in that program and to try to take care of their resources. And it was a struggle. And we did our best to keep them safe, you know, the best we could. This is not being put up in a witness protection situation for a week or for a month. This was a year. And maybe you're saying, why for a year? Well, I can tell you so often the wheels of justice turn slowly.

And we need to make sure these young women are safe throughout that time. But their lives are completely turned upside down. So from the human aspect of this, it is a great toll that these women had taken on their lives all in the name of justice. They knew that I needed them as witnesses. They were doing it mainly because of their friend Dennis Brown, and then they were doing it for Bobby Gibson. So after a year of all of these hurdles, these different chess moves, protecting these women, moving them around, making sure that they were able to testify,

the trial would finally begin. And keep in mind that the last person who defied Debris Harris was Bobby Gibson, and he ended up dead. So you had to wonder, would history repeat itself? After a year in witness protection, it was time for the three women to take the stand in the case against Dupree Harris. Dupree Harris was charged with both intimidating witnesses and bribing them. You know, you're talking about two different charges here, and it's not a package deal, right? A jury can always come back with part of something, one guilty, one not guilty. Obviously, they can go for all or nothing at the same time. But, you know, the bribery in many ways is much more straightforward. The stronger case was for bribery because the girls could specify that he had given them cash,

that he'd given them money. that he'd given them money. He'd also given them certain gifts. Where the intimidating, there's all these different elements about the mindset of both players, and so you're really talking about very different types of crimes. But they also felt intimidated. That was a tougher case to prove. But as prosecutors would soon realize, they did have an uphill battle.

The problem is the jury doesn't have access to all the information that we do. Since Turf had a right to remain silent, the jury weren't going to hear Turf's record. They would see a person who was just sitting peacefully in the courtroom. The justice system was working the way it was designed. Harris was being judged for this specific crime without prejudice for his past. It's kind of ironic for a man accused of taking a wrecking ball to the system.

You know, the jurors really only know about what he's being charged with in this very trial and what he's standing for right there and then. And, you know, any information about what he may have done previous to this case is not admissible. But we also understand and believe that that is the way our justice system works. And for a reason, because people shouldn't be convicted on their past crimes and that doesn't make them guilty of something else.

But yet all these things that you now know, prosecutors knew them too. But that jury wasn't necessarily going to know. What they were going to see is Dupre Harris. And who knows if he was going to have a defense or was going to sit there. But they were going to see these three young women who admittedly had changed their testimony, who had taken money to change what they were going to say. So really, prosecutors and certainly Mitch Benson had no way to know how this was going to say. So really, prosecutors and certainly Mitch Benson had no way to know how this was going to play out.

So all of this has been building up to what would be the jury's decision. What would they be considering in the case of Dupree Harris? In the jury's eyes, they knew that these three witnesses had lied in the past. And how would that affect their decision in the guilt or innocence of Dupree Harris? Because just think about this for a moment, right?

While it seems straightforward to us, if you take a step back from a juror's perspective, they have these young women that are going to admit that they have lied, that they have changed their story based on what was best for them, that they took money to say something different, even though they knew that that was going to potentially impact that murder trial.

And now this case really relied on what each of them said. So would the jury be able to now trust that what they were saying this time around was the truth? Three girls, when they were on the witness stand, they might appear combative because of just the lifestyle and they had become hardened. These are women that have had tough upbringings and were very frustrated by the amount of time that they had now been away from life as they knew it before at this point. The jury would see that a lot of money had been spent on them and know that they had made statements in the past saying that they had recanted in a murder case of their own free will and they had done so to an attorney.

So I was afraid that a jury might perceive that we had put pressure on these girls or induced them through money to testify against Turf when that was not the case. So after the summations were done and the trial came to an end, all eyes in the courtroom and in the community, in the media, were all wanting to know what would happen with the verdict of Dupree Harris. What ended up happening is the jury did convict Dupree Harris of bribery counts for each of the girls, but not of witness intimidation. So guilt on one charge and not guilty on the other. I would imagine some disappointment for the prosecution. Not happy about the verdict because

just the implications of these cases are so bad. You know, why it came about is not good. And whatever we were to do, we're not able to achieve perfect justice. Nothing is going to bring Bobby Gibson back. Nothing is going to bring Dennis Brown back. I think as prosecutors, we always have such a belief in each count that we are arguing to the jury. But really what it comes down to is having to take a step back and just know that the jury did what they found to be justice. And you have to understand that the way we see it, they may see it differently. But the important thing here was that they said to pre-Harris, you should be held accountable for your crime. So when this resulted in a conviction, it was just relief that, you know, there was a mission.

It was something that had to be done. And I remember there was a New York Times reporter who was following the story. And he asked me for a quote afterwards. And I really wasn't able to say anything profound. I didn't have any feeling or thought about it other than, you know, I was relieved that it happened. Just relief that Turf was off the street. So even though he was convicted on one count and acquitted on the other,

the judge handed down a 15-year-to-life sentence. So you might say, well, but he ended up with 15 to life. And that is because based on previous convictions, there are certain circumstances that we can ask the court to sentence them to additional time. It's kind of the aggregate. You look at what someone has done before now at the sentencing phase, and it matters, and the judge takes it into account. So that's exactly what happened here. You put that together with his previous history, and that's where you came up with a much longer sentence. But Harris was still facing more because then he was soon under indictment in another case, a federal case that had to do with narcotics and weapons. And on that

case, he was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to 37 additional years in prison. And remember, we introduced you to Stephen Murphy, who was the original prosecutor on the Sykes case. And we're bringing him back to get his reaction to these verdicts. It's a sad chapter in the life of the criminal justice system to think that a young, promising human life was snuffed out merely because they witnessed a murder and they were willing to cooperate and tell the truth. Never, never a day where I'll ever be able to say, I'm over that. I've gotten past that, because it sticks with you every day of your life. As homicide prosecutors, all these cases matter to us. In this case, these particular prosecutors really face an ultimate challenge. Their job was

to protect justice, and their job was to actually protect the people where so much had already gone so wrong. I have to say that all three of these girls, you know, I think about them a lot. It's hard to explain the spirit that they had, but I do think about what they must be going through and how they're doing today, and obviously don't have any means of contact with them. You had these three girls who had stood up for what was right, even at great risk to themselves. You have Dennis Brown, dead. Bobby Gibson, dead.

The three young women whose lives were uprooted and really changed in some way forever. And to think that all of it started with a slap. It's a case which began on the streets of Brooklyn and ended when the code of silence of those very same streets were broken by three brave eyewitnesses, three women who from the beginning just wanted to do the right thing. Tune in next Wednesday when we'll dissect another new case on Anatomy of Murder. Anatomy of Murder is an Audiochuck original, a Weinberger Media and Forseti Media Production, Sumit David is the executive producer.